Contributions to Architectural and Urban Resilience Through Vulnerability Assessment: The Case of Mozambique Island’s World Heritage

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a thorough study that deals with urgent issues. The conclusions regarding strategies for a local framework make sense to me, in terms of cartography enhancement and risk mapping.  You could be more explicit on strategies for community engagement.  Have a look at articles in the Journal of Community Archaeology and Heritage.  The comparative case studies could be blended into the paper a little more smoothly.  Over, though, a great paper.

Author Response

Comments 1: [ You could be more explicit on strategies for community engagement.  Have a look at articles in the Journal of Community Archaeology and Heritage.]

Response 1:  Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have expanded our discussion of strategies for community engagement in heritage management.

Specifically, we have added a new paragraph in the end (conclusions), which now reads: ["Strategies such as the involvement of various stakeholders, including residents as the best protectors of heritage, and protectors of the place; strengthening public education, with teachers and students as educators of strategies in assessing the conservation status of heritage; alliances with more international organizations and professionals, from adjacent areas, offering technical and financial support in the implementation of resilience mechanisms against cyclonic risks, could be implemented ”]. T. Lertcharnrit and N. Niyomsap, “Heritage management, education, and community involvement in Thailand: A central Thai community case,” J. Community Archaeol. Herit., vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 187–197, 2020.

This addition provides more concrete strategies for community engagement while incorporating insights from recent scholarship in the field. 

Comments 2: [ The comparative case studies could be blended into the paper a little more smoothly.]

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and have taken steps to address it. In response to this feedback, we have made the following changes:

-We have integrated the comparative case studies more smoothly into the paper, specifically in Chapter 2. This section now provides a more cohesive overview of how the case studies inform our methodology and contribute to the overall analysis.

Additionally, following the editor's recommendation, we have revised the structure of the paper to adhere to the recommended format: Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions. This reorganization has allowed for a more logical flow of information and a clearer presentation of our research process and findings. To clarify and provide more coherence to the paper, we changed the title and integrated a chapter "1.1. Cultural heritage and morphology vulnerability assessment" to define the conceptual approach. Lastly, we have revised the title and abstract to more clearly define the focus on vulnerability assessment. We also made some changes according to the other reviewer's suggestions. We updated the cartography to be in PT/EN and with better resolution.

Finally, we note that some changes and minor adjustments have been made to images and text to improve the formatting of the article and we updated the manuscript.

Thank you for your analysis of our article. Your comments helped refine our research focus and methodology, particularly in the field of Architecture and Cultural Heritage. Your input and bibliography references has improved our work and provided a new perspective. We appreciate your contributions which enhanced this article and prompted us to plan future fieldwork with GACIM (Mozambique island conservation office) that will envolve community work. We thank you for your time and input.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article presents a detailed study of Mozambique island heritage and conservation status and on the impacts of environmental factors on this WH property. It shows in depth understanding and holistic assessment that was very interesting to read. As a study of Mozambique island's heritage climate sensitivity this article is well elaborated. However the title and abstract positions this as a paper that deals with climate change resilience and that is not convincingly achieved. 

The framework recommendations provided at the end of the article (p20-21) as conclusions are not well linked to the content. For example a decision support system is proposed but this was not mentioned previously, is not detailed, nor are there references to similar cases where such a system has been used successfully before.

The inclusion of down scaled climate projections would also help to understand how current and past sensitivity will develop in the future vis a vis exposure and to relate the content more convincingly to climate change as per the title of the paper. 

The main weakness in this paper is the lack of integration of the detailed case study materials with the final framework proposed and with the concept of resilience in general - this should be more clearly linked to the identified issues on the island and its different heritage aspects and also to the additional case studies outlined (Bangladesh and Fiji). Critically for creating a response framework the paper mentions there is a climate adaptation plan but does not discuss any of the actions or results - this has been in place for 5 years and any successes or failures will be important lessons for developing a response such as the framework proposed.

It may be that the paper would be better presented as a case study for climate sensitivity rather than climate change resilience - to fully deal with resilience would require more engagement with socio-economic issues vis a vis climate change and the heritage assets and is not necessary if the concept of the paper is defined slightly differently.

The terminology used also needs to be clarified - terms such as prevention and mitigation are used interchangeably with adaptation and mitigation also vulnerability and resilience - all have multiple meanings and require clarification.

Page 7 lines 12-16 meaning is a little hard to understand.

Page 11 line 35 - why haystacks?

Page 15 lines 27 and 30 - clarify rust and hardware?

Page 19 lines 10-11 survey in 2022 provides a baseline for before cyclone Gombe - it would be useful to provide a before and after comparison - is there data from after Gombe?

Author Response

Comments 1: [ As a study of Mozambique island's heritage climate sensitivity this article is well elaborated. However, the title and abstract positions this as a paper that deals with climate change resilience and that is not convincingly achieved.]

Response 1: Thank you for your insightful comment, which has been incredibly helpful in clarifying our approach. We wholeheartedly agree with your observation. Indeed, our paper primarily focuses on assessing the heritage climate sensitivity of Mozambique Island, with a particular emphasis on Morphological Vulnerability. This study serves as a foundation for a more comprehensive research project that we initially planned to conduct on-site. However, due to political instability and security concerns, as advised by our country's consulate, we had to postpone our field work. We acknowledge that the current scope of our paper does not fully address climate change resilience as suggested by the title and abstract. This limitation is primarily due to the lack of access to certain information and local plans, which would have been obtained through our intended field work.

Our original research design included workshops with the local community and a thorough assessment of vulnerabilities by comparing "before and after" scenarios. Given the current circumstances and available data, we have focused on providing contributions that can support further development in this area. We believe that our assessment of Morphological Vulnerability offers valuable insights that can serve as a steppingstone for future, more comprehensive studies on climate change resilience in Mozambique Island.

We appreciate your feedback, and we revised our title and abstract to more accurately reflect the current content and scope of our paper, emphasizing its focus on Morphological Vulnerability assessment. Additionally, we will consider the study of the implementation of Mozambique's climate change plan and its relevance to our study.

We recognize that the main concern of local institutions responsible for heritage is finding ways to work with the community to address cyclone impacts and other climate-related challenges. This community-focused approach aligns with our future research goals, where we intend to conduct workshops and engage directly with local stakeholders to assess vulnerabilities and develop resilience strategies. By incorporating these aspects, we aim to strengthen the connection between our current morphological vulnerability assessment and the broader context of climate change resilience in Mozambique Island's heritage management.

Comments 2: [The framework recommendations provided at the end of the article (p20-21) as conclusions are not well linked to the content. For example, a decision support system is proposed but this was not mentioned previously, is not detailed, nor are there references to similar cases where such a system has been used successfully before.]

Response 2: [ Thank you for your insightful feedback on our framework recommendations and conclusions. We acknowledge that these elements were not sufficiently integrated with the main content of our paper. In response to your comment and the editor's request for structural revisions, we restructured our article to ensure a more cohesive and focused presentation. We clarify our primary focus on assessing heritage climate sensitivity, particularly Morphological Vulnerability, and ensure that all conclusions and recommendations directly stem from the content presented. We remove references to elements not thoroughly discussed within the text and provide more concise, targeted conclusions that align closely with our refined research focus. These changes we hope, that result in a more synthetic approach that addresses your concerns while meeting the editor's requirements for a more focused structure. We appreciate your constructive criticism, which has been invaluable in helping us improve our manuscript.]

Comments 3: [The inclusion of down scaled climate projections would also help to understand how current and past sensitivity will develop in the future vis a vis exposure and to relate the content more convincingly to climate change as per the title of the paper.]

Response 3: [ We consider your suggestion regarding downscaled climate projections very adequate. We agree that this would significantly enhance our study's connection to climate change and provide insights into future sensitivity and exposure. While we cannot incorporate this element at present due to resource constraints, we appreciate its importance and will consider it for future research. Your feedback was crucial for the advancement of our work, and we look forward to exploring this aspect in subsequent studies on Mozambique Island's heritage.]

Comments 4: [The main weakness in this paper is the lack of integration of the detailed case study materials with the final framework proposed and with the concept of resilience in general - this should be more clearly linked to the identified issues on the island and its different heritage aspects and also to the additional case studies outlined (Bangladesh and Fiji).]

Response 4: [ To address the main weakness identified, we focused on integrating the case study materials more effectively. The new structure of the paper, according to the editor's demand, integrates the study cases in the Materials and Methods chapter. Another reviewer also recommended blending it (case study) more. We clarify that the focus is on vulnerability morphology assessment, principally considering the contributions to building construction, public space, and territory interventions. And we consider that this research contributes to the concept of resilience through the following steps:

• Short-term strategies: Outlining immediate actions for building construction and public space interventions that respond to urgent threats identified on the island.
• Long-term strategies: Proposing comprehensive measures for territory-wide interventions that enhance resilience over time, considering the island's unique heritage landscape.

We incorporated lessons learned from the Bangladesh and Fiji case studies to demonstrate how strategies can be adapted to different cultural and environmental contexts.]

Comments 5: [Critically for creating a response framework the paper mentions there is a climate adaptation plan but does not discuss any of the actions or results - this has been in place for 5 years and any successes or failures will be important lessons for developing a response such as the framework proposed]

Response 5: [ We acknowledge the importance of discussing the actions and results of Mozambique's climate adaptation plan, which has been in place for several years. While we don't have access to comprehensive information about its successes or failures at the moment, we recognize that analyzing its implementation will be crucial for developing an effective response future framework.]

Comments 6: [It may be that the paper would be better presented as a case study for climate sensitivity rather than climate change resilience - to fully deal with resilience would require more engagement with socio-economic issues vis a vis climate change and the heritage assets and is not necessary if the concept of the paper is defined slightly differently.]

Response 6: [We appreciate your suggestion to reframe the paper as a case study for climate sensitivity rather than climate change resilience. However, we believe that our previous responses have adequately addressed this concern. Our study focuses on Mozambique Island, a UNESCO World Heritage site, where the heritage assets are the primary subject of investigation. We have strengthened the connection between these assets and the broader concept of resilience by incorporating specific examples from Mozambique Island in the vulnerability morphology assessment and explicitly linking identified issues to different heritage aspects. Throughout the paper, we demonstrate how the proposed strategies contribute to both heritage preservation and community resilience, drawing direct connections to the challenges observed on Mozambique Island. By maintaining this focus on resilience while centering on the heritage assets and the vulnerabilities of Mozambique Island, we believe our paper provides a valuable contribution to understanding the intersection of climate change, cultural heritage, and community adaptation. This approach allows us to address both the sensitivity of these assets to climate change and the adaptive capacity of the community, which are key components of resilience.]

Comments 7: [The terminology used also needs to be clarified - terms such as prevention and mitigation are used interchangeably with adaptation and mitigation also vulnerability and resilience - all have multiple meanings and require clarification.]

Response 7: [ We agree with the reviewer's comment regarding the need for clarity in terminology. We recognize that terms such as prevention, mitigation, adaptation, vulnerability, and resilience can have multiple meanings and interpretations in the context of climate change and heritage conservation. However, we consider the term 'adaptation' can be appropriate in the context of cultural heritage, as demonstrated by our assessment of morphological vulnerabilities and contributions to architecture and urban resilience. To address this concern, we have reviewed and revised our use of those terms throughout the paper.]

Additionally, following the editor's recommendation, we have revised the structure of the paper to adhere to the recommended format: Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions. This reorganization has allowed for a more logical flow of information and a clearer presentation of our research process and findings. To clarify and provide more coherence to the paper, we changed the title and integrated a chapter "1.1. Cultural heritage and morphology vulnerability assessment" to define the conceptual approach. Lastly, we have revised the title and abstract to more clearly define the focus on vulnerability assessment. We also made some changes according to the other reviewer's suggestions. We updated the cartography to be in PT/EN and with better resolution.

Comments 8: Page 7 lines 12-16 meaning is a little hard to understand.

Response 8: [ We are very sorry, but we couldn’t understand which sentences or paragraphs are you referring to.]

Comments 9: Page 11 line 35 - why haystacks?

Response 9: [ Thank you for notice, it was a mistake, and it was replaced by “huts”.]

Comments 10: Page 15 lines 27 and 30 - clarify rust and hardware?

Response 10: [ The word “rust” was a mistake, and it was removed. It was added “(metallic elements of the frames)” in front of hardware.]

Comments 11: Page 19 lines 10-11 survey in 2022 provides a baseline for before cyclone Gombe - it would be useful to provide a before and after comparison - is there data from after Gombe?

Response 11: [ As previously mentioned unfortunately we still don’t have data from after the cyclone Gombe.]

Finally, we note that some changes and minor adjustments have been made to images and text to improve the formatting of the article and we updated the manuscript.

Thank you for your thorough analysis of our article. Your insightful comments were crucial in refining our research focus and methodology. Your review has significantly improved our work, inspiring us to see our study from a new perspective and, at the same time, to specify our field of study: Architecture and Cultural Heritage. We are grateful for your contributions, which not only improved this article, but also motivated us to plan future fieldwork with GACIM (Mozambique island conservation office). Thank you for your time and valuable contribution.